Gene Tunney's decision to fight Heeney instead of Sharkey in finale

So that basically backs up what Tunney said, which is what the thread was started to criticise. So Tunney was right.

 

"Would you be outraged to find out Tyson Fury had some imput on who his next opponent would be?"

This has been a problem with boxing all along. The champions have often picked their opponents and that is why there have been so many mismatches. It is not that way in other sports. In the NFL the AFC champion doesn't get to select which NFC team they will play in the Super Bowl. I assume this is true of the World Cup also. You have to play who earns their way in.

"So should Tunney have had to stay inactive until the full elimination was done?"

The fight with Heeney in the event was on July 26. The planning for an elimination was in March. An elimination could easily have gone off in May or early June. Dempsey and Sharkey in 1927 fought an elimination on July 21 with the championship fight on September 22. I think this is totally a bogus issue.

 

Who is everyone?

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle- 1928 Mar 14
By W. C. VREELAND.
"I HAVE attended all the fights between heavyweights in the last 35 years, but I swear I won't look at one if it is arranged between Tunney and Risko"
The speaker was one of the great unknowns who had witnessed the Sharkey-Risko. He was one of the great unknowns who had witnessed the Sharkey-Risko bout. He was a man well on in years and well off in this world's good, if good clothing is a true indication of a fat bank account. He had occupied a ringside seat, two rows behind His Honor the Mayor.
As he left the side entrance which opens out on 49th st., he expressed himself so that all and sundry of his friends—and there were a number of men in the party—could hear.
The man was florid of face. Whether he was naturally so or from the heat of his blood over the prospects of Johnny Risko being selected as an opponent for Gene Tunney, I know not. But judging by his words, he didn't relish any such thought for the future—a fight between Tunney and Risko for the heavyweight championship.
SPEAKS for Thousands.
AND that unknown was spokeman for man other men who discussed the Risko-Sharkey bout on their homeward journey Monday night.
. . .
And if Heeney and Risko fight, will that mean an honest-to-goodness opponent for Gene? Not much. Neither would pull a corporal's guard to the gate.
Better Dempsey, half blind, than Heeney or Risko. Dempsey is a fighting man.

 

Ok, so it's not a problem with Tunney in the slightest, just a problem with the way boxing has always been done.

 

I don't know why the box office was Tunney's concern. I would say his duty as champion was to fight the best contender out there. If Heeney in fact was the best contender he would prove it in an elimination and actually enhance his box office pull. It appears to me the worry that Risko would be a lesser box office attraction, not something easy to prove, would have been Rickard's concern. I think Tunney intervened because he was worried that Risko would be a tougher opponent.

 

No. It is a problem for any champion who selects lesser opponents. One way to avoid criticism is for the champion not to be involved in selecting his opponents.

If your point is that Heeney is not the worst challenger to ever get a shot, I agree. But I disagree that he had proven himself the leading contender. A win in an elimination with Risko would have strongly improved his case.

The importance for Tunney is that other than Dempsey, he didn't fight many top heavyweights. His stature as a heavyweight champion, for me, would have risen with a win over someone like Sharkey or Godfrey, or even Risko. Heeney didn't do anything to burnish his historical reputation.

 

You'd be saying the same if he defended against Risko, a guy who's main assets were heart and toughness

 

But it isn't Suzie saying it is it ? It's James Dawson, one of the most respected boxing scribes of his time.